Gary Johnson comments on Religious Freedom

[Guest MormonGator]

http://www.sltrib.com/news/4183208-155/libertarian-gary-johnsons-comments-on-religious#sthash.YOg2I7kq.gbpl&st_refDomain=www.facebook.com&st_refQuery=/

[Guest MormonGator]

I always liked Gary Johnson but I disagree with him very strongly on religious freedom. 

[zil]

Quote

"I mean under the guise of religious freedom, anybody can do anything," Johnson said. "Back to Mormonism. Why shouldn't somebody be able to shoot somebody else because their freedom of religion says that God has spoken to them and that they can shoot somebody dead?"

Really?  That's his example?  He couldn't think of something that has a remote chance of happening in normalville?  He had to pick some extreme improbability as a reason not to have religious freedom?  By that argument, it's a good reason not to have any freedom - just lock everyone up in padded rooms.  The complete absence of logic on every level, as well as forethought, would be shocking were it not for the rest of our political climate.

Am I confused, or does that not sound terribly libertarian?

We really are screwed, aren't we.

 

[Guest MormonGator]

He isn't a libertarian for that very reason. He's a liberal in libertarian clothing. 

[Guest]

[Guest MormonGator]

6 minutes ago, Eowyn said:

 I usually vote republican so it's been hard seeing the party I generally agree with commit mass this election cycle. I know we don't drink, but I think a special allowance should be made until 2020. 

[Guest]

 

 

[james12]

Gary Johnson clarified his statements about religious freedom and discrimination in an article published by the Deseret News yesterday (Aug 2nd): Gary Johnson: Religious Freedom and Non-Discrimination Laws. In this statement he tried to clarify his comments about the LDS church and the discrimination they faced. Here is what I see as his main point.  

Quote

To be blunt, certain politicians have twisted religious liberty and used it as a tool to discriminate.

...I want to be clear. I believe we can, and must, strike a balance between our shared American values of religious liberty and freedom from discrimination. My concerns lie with the possible consequences of politically-driven legislation which claims to promote religious liberty but instead rolls back the legal protections held by LGBT Americans.

...America is big enough to accommodate differences of opinion and practice on religious and social beliefs. As a nation and as a society, we must reject discrimination, forcefully and without asterisks. Most importantly, as president I will zealously defend the Constitution of the United States and all of its amendments.

I think his statements about our church were poorly worded, but I believe I see what he is saying. We must be careful not to discriminate in any way. 

[Guest]

50 minutes ago, james12 said:

We must be careful not to discriminate in any way. 

Why not?

[zil]

4 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Why not?

Yes, let's face it, the mere act of having standards is a form of discrimination.  Laws against murder (as long as we're going to extremes) are a form of discrimination.  Sometimes, we need to discriminate.  A religion must be allowed to deny their rites, membership, and other privileges to someone who does not accept the corresponding beliefs; and to refuse to participate in things which conflict with their beliefs.  Otherwise, you have no religion.  Thus, some forms of discrimination must be allowed.

[Guest MormonGator]

3 minutes ago, zil said:

Yes, let's face it, the mere act of having standards is a form of discrimination.  Laws against murder (as long as we're going to extremes) are a form of discrimination.  Sometimes, we need to discriminate.  A religion must be allowed to deny their rites, membership, and other privileges to someone who does not accept the corresponding beliefs; and to refuse to participate in things which conflict with their beliefs.  Otherwise, you have no religion.  Thus, some forms of discrimination must be allowed.

I think that's more keeping standards than discrimination. When I think of discrimination I think of forbidding people to do something based on something they have no control over.

[zil]

3 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

I think that's more keeping standards than discrimination. When I think of discrimination I think of forbidding people to do something based on something they have no control over.

A) Turn on snooty English accent: "He has discriminating taste."  Discrimination is not necessarily negative.

B) We as a church forbid our members to do all kinds of things.

C) People have more control than they want to admit.

D) People do not necessarily have a right to "do something" (depends on what "something" is)

E) I need to work now and don't have time to figure out the correct wording for this one, but I think we all know it already: the difference between forced participation and denial of participation / service when the activity in question is not one necessary to sustain life, especially when it's not provided with public funds (aka by government) but rather by a private entity.

[Guest MormonGator]

1 hour ago, zil said:

A) Turn on snooty English accent: "He has discriminating taste."  Discrimination is not necessarily negative.

B) We as a church forbid our members to do all kinds of things.

C) People have more control than they want to admit.

D) People do not necessarily have a right to "do something" (depends on what "something" is)

E) I need to work now and don't have time to figure out the correct wording for this one, but I think we all know it already: the difference between forced participation and denial of participation / service when the activity in question is not one necessary to sustain life, especially when it's not provided with public funds (aka by government) but rather by a private entity.

All true, though I don't think the church "forbids" us to do anything. Nothing is stopping any of us from smoking a joint or having a shot of whiskey. There are just consequences if we choose to do so. 

It's like speeding. Laws that stop us from speeding down the highway don't stop us from speeding, they just punish us (correctly so) when we do it. 

When I think of discrimination I think of refusing someone on the basis of skin color, gender, etc

But I see your larger point and totally agree with you, for sure. 

Edited August 3, 2016 by MormonGator

[james12]

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Why not?

I was just paraphrasing Johnson's statement. However, I do think it is important to not confuse different definitions of the same word, as I believe Zil has done. It appears clear to me that Gary Johnson was referring to this definition, "the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex." Of course we must chose between our actions, but this use of the word is a completely different context. 

[Guest]

10 hours ago, james12 said:

"the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex."

WOOPS!

I forgot.

Quote

2) Age?  What about kids?  What about the general inexperience of youth even if we're talking about adults?  I'll give you an example of this below.

I have many people working under me that are young, not just inexperienced in the profession.  They are simply young and don't think the same way an older person would think.  It is extremely frustrating to work with some people like that.  I'd avoid hiring them if I could.  They're adults with college degrees and everything on paper says they should be qualified.  But they simply can't do the job, if I daresay because of age.

Edited August 4, 2016 by Guest

[Just_A_Guy]

17 hours ago, MormonGator said:

He isn't a libertarian for that very reason. He's a liberal in libertarian clothing. 

His fiscal conservative credentials do seem bona fide.  But a lot of folks seem to think that "libertarian" is just a fiscally conservative libertine--and fundamentally, I think that's what really Johnson is (look no further than the double entendre of his campaign slogan).

That's where the libertarian party has gone; but as I understand it classical libertarianism recognizes the need for a moral citizenry--it just leaves it up to non-governmental organizations to provide the bulk of that moral structure.  If the Libertarian party could find a candidate who lived up to its ideals, I'd probably hop on the train without reservation.  As it is, being a Utah resident, I'll probably vote for whichever candidate the statewide polls suggest is closest to besting Trump.  At the moment, that could be either Johnson or Clinton.

Edited August 3, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[Anddenex]

5 hours ago, zil said:

Yes, let's face it, the mere act of having standards is a form of discrimination.  Laws against murder (as long as we're going to extremes) are a form of discrimination.  Sometimes, we need to discriminate.  A religion must be allowed to deny their rites, membership, and other privileges to someone who does not accept the corresponding beliefs; and to refuse to participate in things which conflict with their beliefs.  Otherwise, you have no religion.  Thus, some forms of discrimination must be allowed.

Alright zil, please stop with the wise wisdom and making statements that actually make sense...the natural man doesn't like it

[Anddenex]

29 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

His fiscal conservative credentials do seem bona fide.  But a lot of folks seem to think that "libertarian" is just a fiscally conservative libertine--and fundamentally, I think that's what really Johnson is (look no further than the double entendre of his campaign slogan).

That's where the libertarian party has gone; but as I understand it classical libertarianism recognizes the need for a moral citizenry--it just leaves it up to non-governmental organizations to provide the bulk of that moral structure.  If the Libertarian party could find a candidate who lived up to its ideals, I'd probably hop on the train without reservation.  As it is, being a Utah resident, I'll probably vote for whichever candidate the statewide polls suggest is closest to besting Trump.  At the moment, that could be either Johnson or Clinton.

Wait, what...did you I read this correctly that you would you vote for Clinton if it meant beating Trump

[zil]

2 hours ago, james12 said:

However, I do think it is important to not confuse different definitions of the same word, as I believe Zil has done. It appears clear to me that Gary Johnson was referring to this definition, "the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex."

I didn't confuse anything (inside my mind).  I declined to accept the liberals attempting to restrict the meaning of the word and thereby limit the conversation, as if all forms of discrimination are bad.  See @Carborendum's reply for the rest of that.  But I'll add an example: the LGBT folk (would) say that the Church refusing to baptize, seal, endow, etc. practicing homosexuals is unjust and prejudicial.  They're right (depending on how eternal or worldly you want your definition of "unjust" to be), and we have every right to be unjust and prejudicial in this regard - we have a moral obligation to discriminate in this regard.  (You could apply that same example to the Ordain Women folk.)

[Just_A_Guy]

20 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

Wait, what...did you I read this correctly that you would you vote for Clinton if it meant beating Trump

Beating Trump in Utah, yes; but that's another thread.  (Several other threads, actually; and most of them didn't end well . . .   )

Edited August 3, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[LeSellers]

This whole thing seems to miss a very important point: there is no right to be not discriminated against except by the government. Anyone should be able to discriminate against anyone else for any reason whatsoever.

If I were driving from Reno to Tooele, and had a blowout five miles from Carlin, NV, and the owner of the only tire store there didn't like left-handed people, or Saints, or old guys, I'd rather walk to Elko than use the government to force the bigot to serve me. It's his natural right to refuse me service.

The federal government is the only thing limited by the Constitution (except for a few restrictions on the states and a very few on individuals). Freedom of assembly and association (whether mentioned in the Document or not — see amendment IX) are anyone's God-given right. The government has no legitimate interest in forcing a tire dealer to put tires on my car.

Even less does it have the legitimate interest in forcing a school, a church, a men's club, or a pizza parlor to serve anyone who walks through the door. They, these entrants, have no right to service.

I would have liked Johnson better than Trump and far  better than the Hildebeast except for this Freudian slip. The so-called LGBTQRSTUV movement has no legitimate reason to turn to the government to force any entity or any person to meet their demands. They can find another baker, another photographer, another pizza parlor or another preacher to serve them. They're out there. And, even if they were not, there is nothing in the Constitution, nor in any natural law that allows government to step in and force one man to break his vows or ignore his beliefs or trample on his own faith (or even his bigotry).

The fact that LGBTQRSTUVs can turn to government is just another indicator that the government has long since overstepped its legitimate bounds. It's too big, too intrusive, and too, far too, expensive in both financial and other ways. We are serfs, tax slaves, money cattle, and nothing else to our masters in Washington, and Sacramento, and Denver, and Albany, and Augusta, and Austin.

Lehi

Edited August 4, 2016 by LeSellers

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

This article made me feel better..guardedly so, but I'll take it. 

http://beta.deseretnews.com/article/865659254/EXCLUSIVE-Gary-Johnson-Religious-freedom-and-non-discrimination-laws.html

[james12]

11 hours ago, LeSellers said:

This whole thing seems to miss a very important point: there is no right to be not discriminated against except by the government. Anyone should be able to discriminate against anyone else for any reason whatsoever.

If I were driving from Reno to Tooele, and had a blowout five miles from Carlin, NV, and the owner of the only tire store there didn't like left-handed people, or Saints, or old guys, I'd rather walk to Elko than use the government to force the bigot to serve me. It's his natural right to refuse me service.

The federal government is the only thing limited by the Constitution (except for a few restrictions on the states and a very few on individuals). Freedom of assembly and association (whether mentioned in the Document or not — see amendment IX) are anyone's God-given right. The government has no legitimate interest in forcing a tire dealer to put tires on my car.

Even less does it have the legitimate interest in forcing a school, a church, a men's club, or a pizza parlor to serve anyone who walks through the door. They, these entrants, have no right to service.

I would have liked Johnson better than Trump and far  better than the Hildebeast except for this Freudian slip. The so-called LGBTQRSTUV movement has no legitimate reason to turn to the government to force any entity or any person to meet their demands. They can find another baker, another photographer, another pizza parlor or another preacher to serve them. They're out there. And, even if they were not, there is nothing in the Constitution, nor in any natural law that allows government to step in and force one man to break his vows or ignore his beliefs or trample on his own faith (or even his bigotry).

The fact that LGBTQRSTUVs can turn to government is just another indicator that the government has long since overstepped its legitimate bounds. It's too big, too intrusive, and too, far too, expensive in both financial and other ways. We are serfs, tax slaves, money cattle, and nothing else to our masters in Washington, and Sacramento, and Denver, and Albany, and Augusta, and Austin.

Lehi

I don't have time to reply to all comments. But I agree with you. In the main, previous posts were given just to clarify Johnson's stance. 

[Guest]

11 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

This article made me feel better..guardedly so, but I'll take it. 

http://beta.deseretnews.com/article/865659254/EXCLUSIVE-Gary-Johnson-Religious-freedom-and-non-discrimination-laws.html

I could choose to believe this is just a politician trying to backpeddle.  Or I could choose to believe his excuse that he was a bit flustered by the "scrum" of reporters and words just did not come out right.

...

Ok.  Because of the acknowledgements in the rest of the article (in particular the government persecution of the Saints and the "Utah compromise") I can believe the latter.

[Guest MormonGator]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I could choose to believe this is just a politician trying to backpeddle.  Or I could choose to believe his excuse that he was a bit flustered by the "scrum" of reporters and words just did not come out right.

...

Ok.  Because of the acknowledgements in the rest of the article (in particular the government persecution of the Saints and the "Utah compromise") I can believe the latter.

The one thing I'll say to a politicians defense is that they have every single word of theirs recorded, analyzed and critiqued-don't get me wrong, that's a good thing. But if I recorded every single one of your words, took them out of context, analyzed and critiqued them, I could make you look bad too. 

Not you meaning Carb, universal usage of the word. 

Edited August 4, 2016 by MormonGator